Hall v. State

Per Curiam. The Appellant, Essaw Hall, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County of common-law burglary and sentenced to ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary. In this appeal, it is contended that the State failed to prove a prima facie case and, therefore, the trial court erred in denying the Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal which was made at the conclusion of the State’s case. The record indicates that after the motion was denied, testi ³⁹⁴ mony was offered on behalf of the Appellant.

Under Maryland Rule 755b, this had the effect of withdrawing the motion. Accordingly, the contention that the trial court erred in not granting the motion for judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the State’s case is not properly before us. Jason v. State, 1 Md. App. 136 . The Appellant failed to renew the motion for judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the entire case and, accordingly, this court is precluded from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence.

Jason v. State, supra, and cases cited therein. Even if the question were properly before us, we would have no difficulty in finding that there was legally sufficient evidence, or reasonable inferences therefrom, from which the jury could find the Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Royal v. State, 236 Md. 443, 448 (1964); Coates v. State, 232 Md. 72, 74 (1963). The record shows that at 2:00 a.m. in the morning, the occupants of a dwelling house in Silver Spring were awakened by the Appellant’s beating on the front door with sufficient force to break the panel thereof.

When asked by the owner to identify himself, he simply said “Let me in.” The owner immediately went upstairs, procured a 22 caliber rifle and had his wife call the police. In the meantime, the Appellant went around to a side door, broke the window pane therein with a broom stick, reached in, unlatched the door and pushed it open. When confronted by the owner with the rifle, he ran. The police arrived at this time and after a short search found the Appellant leaning against the back of the house.

The police were forced to hold him at gun point because he threatened to run away and he resisted a search of his person to such an extent that it was necessary to handcuff him. The police testified that at this time